What Would The Reaction To A Female Bond (007, that is) Be?

[Darth Rosenberg]

But then it wouldn't be James Bond. Bond is a character who is established to be a Scots-British, white, heterosexual male - change any one of those things and he becomes a different character.

Skyfall plays with the idea that Bond might not be entirely straight, mind (and no, I'm not hanging my hat on that alone, clearly, but I'm just pointing it out).

That's why I'm not a fan of race-switching or genderbending in fiction. It destroys established lore in favour of token diversity or representation.

Eh, I think that's a ridiculous notion. No lore is every "destroyed" by the presence of another expression of an idea, nor does it have to be "token" diversity unless that's all the writer/director is intending.

The upcoming Doctor Strange is swapping gender and race for two characters, and it won't nullify the previous versions of the Ancient One and Mordo. Those ain't Bond, sure, but they're another expression of established characters, and they're going to be played by two cracking actors.

As for a female Bond... it would either have to be played as a straight-up parody to deliberately highlight all the differences in gender roles, because they'd be incongruous as all hell, or else they'd need to modify the character to the point where there's scarcely any resemblence to the original. Bond was always a power fantasy, and not a particularly realistic or subtle one at that, but for the most part he wasn't farcical. A trouser-suited female lead going around pinching men's bottoms and socking bad guys in the jaw would be surreal. Suspension of disbelief, meet window.

...so a female Bond breaks suspension of disbelief, but all the other cartoony nonsense (invisible cars, moon bases, etc) in the series doesn't?

I think it'd be an interesting way to explore the icon, explore gender roles, perceptions of gender associated sexuality, action tropes, and so on.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Snip 2: Electric Boogaloo

Actually, I need to ask you guys a question on a point of clarification. Since I brought up the Bond Sexual Conquest issue, I should ask: Is all of this any greater in volume than any normal decries of this issue for Mr. Bond?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Probably in the same way people complained about the last Mad Max, multiplied by 100. In all honesty, I wouldn't care either way. Everyone loves their particular examination of Bond. Whether Bond was genderswapped, it would still be a case where people have a 'favourite' and doggedly defend them regardless of the innate cheesyness every Bond to date has exuded.

Purely for the sheer campy joy, Roger Moore will always be the greatest Bond. If you got someone equally campy, and purely entertaining to watch, it wouldn't matter if they were a man or woman. I'll still rate them higher than Craig or Dalton.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Thing is, they kinda already did do this kind of thing with Haywire http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1506999/?ref_=nv_sr_1. And it wasn't exactly a small indie production either: just look at that cast. Okay, so it's more of a straight up action movie than Bond, but not too far from it either. I haven't seen the film so I won't speculate on why it seems to have faded into history, but the point still stands: Hollywood can make action movies with female leads.

Modest budget and still lost money. SALT made a few million... Lucy was a big success, so there's that.

The Bond series has been running for more than 50 years and has grossed more than 6 billion dollars. It's beloved. I have trouble understanding how anyone would attribute any push back against the idea of altering it entirely to some flavour of 'bigotry'. Seems far too simple, and frankly far too misanthropic, and doesn't really appreciate what fandom is and can mean.

Why?

That would be my reaction, because what is the point?

If they (whoever this hypothetical they may be) want to make a film with a female super-spy, why don't they just do that, instead of gender swapping an existing and established character (irrespective of the notion that "James Bond" and 007 are just code names not attached to any one individual or any race or gender)?

They could even set it in the same universe and have cross-over (which would probably work better anyway with Bond having a female equal to co-exist and interact with), but why destroy and replace instead of create and supplement?

If anyone was serious about this idea, they should test the waters by making her another 00# with her own motives, agendas and case to pursue (perhaps with a cameo from Bond at the beginning to establish it's in the same universe and they work for the same agency), then if she's well received and popular, they could make another film in with the both of them working together, and if she's really well received and beloved by all, then perhaps in that film James Bond could get killed or retired and she gets a field promotion to 007 and becomes the current Bond officially.

Still, my gut reaction is that it's a terrible idea because straight gender swapping without changing anything else would seem like a parody (Jane Bond the bitchy, chain-smoking, binge drinking, mentally unstable, alcoholic cougar super-slut), but changing other aspects of Bond's personality, character and lifestyle to something that would be more appropriate for a female would strip away that which makes Bond Bond.

Why indeed?

Expanding on existing fictions seems like a good way to enrich them. Gender-flips and reboots... Not so much. These things are born from a completely un-creative place, and with that in mind I would have little hope that they would get more creative from there. It's not to say that it can't be done, but it's quite a hurdle, especially with a series that is still running and still has peoples interest. You'd be better off necroing a dead series, though it's still completely un-creative.

edit - Sorry I messed up the quoting.

 

[Kathinka]

I don't know. On the one hand, it could be an interesting and refreshing change.

On the other hand, the entire premise of Bond is that he is the quintessential Alpha male, cocky, suave (or greasy AF in some of the older installments, har har) and aggressive. A female bond would also take away some of the plausibility we have gotten back in the later bonds, where it's more about shady international deals and terrorists instead of moon bases and death rays. It's strongly hinted that Bond has an SBS background, and for sure he has a combat military background, which at the time is not feasible for a female.

 

[Rastrelly]

With this last guy they rendered franchise unwatchable for me, so I don't care anymore - black, woman, gay, black gay woman, whatever. Next they should make Obama's biopic, but make him white. And woman.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I got an idea some time ago: Start a spinoff franchise, with a female 00# agent as the main character. But here's the kicker: she's the behind the scenes guy. The one who gathers all the information for Bond to use that they can't get another way. She's the one doing gnarly stuff in the background: kidnappings, assassination, extortion, forgery, fraud, interrogation and so on. She's the darker side of MI6. No car chases, fist fights or shootouts, but intrigue, tension and ambiguity. Now there's some flipping of gender expectations for you. When the idea occurred to me, I had a vision of a movie poster, of a ponytailed woman with a pistol in a suit, facing away from the camera. I don't know why, but I immediately got intrigued in the prospect.

Spoiler: Like this, but (gender)flipped (ho ho ho!)

 

[Thaluikhain]

Next they should make Obama's biopic, but make him white. And woman.

Slight difference in that Obama happens not to be a fictional character. And that Bond has been reinvented a few times already, but mostly the thing about him not being real.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Next they should make Obama's biopic, but make him white. And woman.

Slight difference in that Obama happens not to be a fictional character.

That's what makes it so subversive.

I got an idea some time ago: Start a spinoff franchise, with a female 00# agent as the main character. But here's the kicker: she's the behind the scenes guy. The one who gathers all the information for Bond to use that they can't get another way. She's the one doing gnarly stuff in the background: kidnappings, assassination, extortion, forgery, fraud, interrogation and so on. She's the darker side of MI6. No car chases, fist fights or shootouts, but intrigue, tension and ambiguity. Now there's some flipping of gender expectations for you. When the idea occurred to me, I had a vision of a movie poster, with a ponytailed woman with a pistol in a suit, facing away from the camera. I don't know why, but I immediately got intrigued in the prospect.

Spoiler: Like this, but (gender)flipped (ho ho ho!)

I'd watch it...

Expanding universes outwards rather than altering what is known about them seems like a recipe for richer worlds and less hacky films, to me at least. A new character in the same universe can be it's own thing, and creativity can happen. With reboots and the idea of gender-flipping you have an uncreative base to start with, and then you have to take on a whole load of baggage to justify the decision to be using the license the way you are. Is hamstringing your own creativity and your chances of favourable fan reception to be subversive in the most attention seeking way possible worthwhile? I don't think so. You could bring plenty of attention to the project by having Daniel Craig (or whoever is the current 007 at the time) make a brief appearance and make it abundantly clear in the marketing that these are co-existing and even intersecting pieces of fiction.

That'd be my choice anyway. Less to lose, more to gain. The universe gets more characters that still get to piggyback on brand recognition in the short term and possibly become very established in their own right in the long term, and you run far lesser risk of alienating the existing fanbase in the process.

 

[09philj]

It would be hateful, but that's because Bond is hateful. A sexist psychopathic killer is a sexist psychopathic killer. Then again I think Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (The Alec Guiness version) is the greatest spy thriller ever put to screen, so I may not be the intended audience.

 

[Lightknight]

Gender flipping for gender-flipping's sake is inherently sexist. My response would be that the people who made that decision were sexist in two ways:

1. They discriminated based on sex and then decided that only people without cocks were qualified for the role. Textbook sexism.
2. They did not believe that a woman could carry her own new IP and thus shoehorned her into an existing IP to borrow the popularity of a male role.

Would it succeed? Maybe. Female led action films have a very hit or miss history and often have to compromise on areas of sex appeal to cater to the male audience of the action film. Which isn't bad, but isn't what most people who want a female lead are looking for. As Panda pointed out above, even a solid female performance doesn't seem to be key to the success of the film so maybe there more safety in casting men as far as investment is concerned.

For example, I personally have an issue seeing a 109 lb woman kicking a 250 lb combat hardened man through a wall. It just isn't believable to me and comes off as more of a laugh. Just like I'd laugh at a 109 lb man kicking a 250 lb combat hardened man through a wall.

Would it be new and interesting? No, I've seen nearly every kind of spy flick. It it played anything like a traditional bond film then it'd just be stale. If you want to do something new and interesting then do new IP, don't just try to pull a sexist gimmick to get your way out of it.

Now, let's say they are casting the next James Bond movie and a woman tries out for it and crushes the audition in a way that makes it clear she is the best for the role. Then and only then should the role go to a female. But that's because she's the best person for the job and not because the casting agent is being sexist like they are in so many films. But it would have to be pretty significant for fans to be on board to see major masculine qualities of James being thrown under the bus.

 

[d00mMarinEBG]

I'm not a huge fan of the Bond franchise but i think that a female JB would suck because:
1 They can make Jane Bond who acts exactly as male Bond and whats the point then? It's the same character only whit a vag instaet of a dick.
2 Or make Jane Bond who acts nothing like male Bond and that's no good either

And who needs a Jane Bond anyway make a No One Lives Forever movie Kate Archer is already the closest thing to a FemBond

 

[Rastrelly]

Next they should make Obama's biopic, but make him white. And woman.

Slight difference in that Obama happens not to be a fictional character. And that Bond has been reinvented a few times already, but mostly the thing about him not being real.

It's really slight. Bond is Bond.Mug is mug. Obama is Obama. Each has certain definition. Change the definition - and you change an object, thus making this object not what it is.

 

[killbabykill]

I joined the Escapist just so I could say the following: she already exists, and her name is Modesty Blaise. The movie, made right around the time Jimmy B. got his start is NOT a good representation of her. Look for the book from '65, by Peter O'Donnell. Or any of her collected comics. She's extremely awesome.

I think genderswapping is pandering. It never really brings anything to a character that you can't write for the character to begin with. There are no hard and fast rules for 'how women act' or 'how men act'.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Terrible idea, and the main reason why has been said a bajillion times in the thread already.

If it's a carbon-copy genderswap, then why bother to swap it in the first place. If you make it something diffrent, don't use the name of the franchise to fake credibility/fame etc.
Would a female spy be cool, who is similar to James Bond but something unique? A own franchise? Hell yeah, give me that. But please stop manglin' all the old franchises for money/sjw/moodswings/internethissyfit reasons.

The current butchering of old cartoon franchises is tragic enough.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I just don't see the need for their to be a gender swap in the first place.

Just this year saw the release of Kingsman: The Secret Service and The Man From U.N.C.L.E, both of which proved without a doubt that spy genre flicks do not need the James Bond brand to be either good or successful. I would even argue that those last two movies were far more entertaining then the stylised realism of movies featuring Daniel Craig's James Bond.

 

[DeepReaver]

It would not be 007. This is my issue with re-vamps, why do they need to do a re-vamp of an old character? Why can't they just make a new one in the same world? Why does this new character have to just ride of the coat tails of the old one and not be their own person? I have had this same issue with comic books for a long time, if you wanna make a gay black trans-gendered or what ever other controversial or buzz word worthy character why do they need to replace the old ones? Are people so unsure of their writing these days that they cannot simply trust a new character to do well?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Swapping out the same character for different shit you want to make is just a terrible practice. Do that shit legit and create a character that fits the story if you even have any, don't just put more mud in the water until everything is the same old crap.

 

[K12]

I'd quite like to see this but I don't think you could just do a straight gender-swap without it having a fairly big impact on the way the formula works. I think the character of Bond is fairly essentially male as he's generally supposed to be the perfect Englishman with all the traits that entails. Rakishness and Bond's variety of confident charm is a very masculine power-fantasy/ ideal.

I'd definitely like to a see a spy film where a female character being sexually-manipulative, flirty and promiscuous (like Bond) isn't an automatic "she's evil" flag.

The reaction would be... poor. For fuck's sake people complained when they cast Daniel Craig because he's blonde (apparently). A lot of load claims of "But WHY???" without saying the full question of "But WHY... would you try to do something new and mould-breaking with a 50 year old film franchise". Personally I'd just like to see something more interesting done with Bond girls other than the standard "manipulative villain", "naive kill who dies" and "hot girl who has no real impact on the plot".

Judy Dench as M worked really well, a spin-off series of her earlier career would be great!